Xp Vs 2000

[LTJBukem]

Originally posted by &#045;netweiser&#045;+13 October 2003 - 22:38--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (&#045;netweiser&#045; &#064; 13 October 2003 - 22:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-clocker@13 October 2003 - 22:34
Netweiser,

What does 2000 do better than XP?
Why do you like it a "little " bit better?

well, i dont know. they both look and feel the same to me. but XP has some annoying features which make u seem like a total thick sh*t and i dont like them. and win2000 dont use so much ram.[/b][/quote]


I do know what you mean. But really though, just turn all those annoying wizards off, and XP will use the same amount of ram if you switch off all the eye candy.

Although, having said all that, 2000 is a great OS. I&#39;m not knocking it, i use 2000 all the time for work. It&#39;s just that you stated your preference but didn&#39;t explain why. Now you have though.

[clocker]

Originally posted by netweiser-@13 October 2003 - 15:38
and win2000 dont use so much ram.

Fair enough.

How much RAM do you find it takes to put 2k up on the screen as opposed to XP?

[Livy]

xp with every little peice of crap i can turned off,

using xplite aswell to get rid of some crap. xp has that little edge over 2k for looks, i dont means themes etc, but just the start button and icons etc, look a bit better

[kurtsl0an]

xp only takes more ram if u have the performance set 2 adjust fer better appearance.

xp is easier fer my users on the network - that&#39;s y i like it more.

ps - xp loads MUCH quicker than 2000.

[LTJBukem]

Originally posted by kurtsl0an@13 October 2003 - 23:25
xp only takes more ram if u have the performance set 2 adjust fer better appearance.

xp is easier fer my users on the network - that&#39;s y i like it more.

ps - xp loads MUCH quicker than 2000.

Hmm. You really sound like you know what you&#39;re talking about.

"xp is easier"

"fer my users"

"the network"

Aye right.

The only network you&#39;ve got is the spots on your face.

[kurtsl0an]

Originally posted by LTJBukem+13 October 2003 - 23:33--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LTJBukem @ 13 October 2003 - 23:33)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-kurtsl0an@13 October 2003 - 23:25
xp only takes more ram if u have the performance set 2 adjust fer better appearance.&nbsp;

xp is easier fer my users on the network - that&#39;s y i like it more.

ps - xp loads MUCH quicker than 2000.

Hmm. You really sound like you know what you&#39;re talking about.

"xp is easier"

"fer my users"

"the network"

Aye right.

The only network you&#39;ve got is the spots on your face. [/b][/quote]
i like u - ur funny.

honestly - i am the network admin at an engineering firm but also consult for a client base of 20.

good call though - u got me - i&#39;m a fake.

[Wolfmight]

Xp runs just like 2000 when eye candy is turned off. I benchmarked useing pcmark in both o/ses .. same speed.

[kurtsl0an]

biggest reason i like xp more is cuz it seems 2 handle plug and pray a lil better. there r about a dozen users w/pocket pc&#39;s and most have xp. fer some reason the 2000 pc&#39;s lose the connection 2 the pda, and wastes my time settin it back up fer them.

also better w/memory sticks as it usually has driver.

[LTJBukem]

Originally posted by kurtsl0an&#39;s sig
i have 37 copies of "like a prayer"

Is this true? I think this is hilarious, but that&#39;s on the assumption that you&#39;re joking. You are joking, aren&#39;t you?

[LTJBukem]

Originally posted by kurtsl0an@13 October 2003 - 23:49
biggest reason i like xp more is cuz it seems 2 handle plug and pray a lil better. there r about a dozen users w/pocket pc&#39;s and most have xp. fer some reason the 2000 pc&#39;s lose the connection 2 the pda, and wastes my time settin it back up fer them.

also better w/memory sticks as it usually has driver.

Better handling of plug and pray, eh? Ahmen to that.